Unfortunately the saying refers to soft men like Trump et. al., not femboys.
God I wish we had a femboy president and cabinet… I’m not even attracted to them. I just know they’d be infinitely better than the fucking fascist cheeto et. al…
Eh… I’m aware how insufferably ‘bottom’ many of them are. To want to be a nazi whilst being a type of person they would likely dislike is … pretty strong bottom energy.
There a lot of people in LGBT+ community that supports islam\sharia law. Amount of people that are simultaneously in those two circles is surprisingly high. Same with women and sharia law actually. You would think they understand that it basically a suicide - but here we are. Sadly, don’t have exact numbers, maybe that just vocal minority, who knows.
I mean, even if we talking about politics - there a lot of people who supported Trump for example. Same people then complained, that their group (LGBT+, farmers, etc) was negatively affected by his politics. Leopards do what leopards do.
Also, in my birth country russia (I hope it cease to exist), all that fascist “z” movement rise so high, that many communities like furry, anime, mlp, etc. became toxic waste. Sad thing really, you see how people support same regime, that prosecute them.
Yea, it was partly a joke. I will never understand how people, especially minorities, can look themselves in the mirror after voting against their own interest. Not even in a greedy way, but in a, “what the fuck did you think would happen?” sort of way.
This is still not the criteria to decide who decides…
… Nor correct reasoning. Femboys can be fascist too. These are not mutually exclusive sets. So no, you are in error asserting you know they’d be better, if you’re saying they’d not be fascist. Power corrupts, and corrupted feboys may be a devil we don’t know. I’d rather not have a devil making machine. No matter which flavour of devils. I do not want a devil making machine. Putting women in power, did not mend it. Putting “black faces in high places”, did not mend it. But putting femboys in the power structure shaped for fascism, is going to mend it? May be yet missing the lesson to learn here. ~ Sorry Martin Luther King. I’m tryin.
Your aggressive ad-hominem, and moved goal posts, is uncompelling. Sorry I’ve failed to help elucidate the epistemics here for you, past your apparent identity attachment with this that’s causing such a social-dominance limbic-reaction occluding critical thinking, but given that reaction, I’m losing confidence in my abilities to cut through the emotion to get this correspondence back to the simple logic, and shan’t even try. Hoping you find the way to feel better.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
Fun testing my fallacy detector on your responses. We’ve gone from the earlier hasty-generalization (& over-generalising, & stereotype-based generalization), false-dilemma (& black and white thinking), ad-hominem, appeal to emotion, overconfidence, moving goal posts, hyperbole, weasel words, strawman, false equivalence, begging the question, non-sequitur, cherry-picking, and whatever else I missed, ~~ to now also add another ad-hominem, name-calling, appeal to ridicule, false authority, more hyperbole, red-herring, argument from ignorance, and whatever else I didn’t pick up on or neglected to note.
Always quite the spectacle, such rhetorical sauce, so reduced, so concentrated, to pack in so many punches in so few words. Makes it a bit of an exercise in Brandolini’s Law too. Much psychological analysis fun to be had in this too.
Still, beyond these increasing derailments, it would be good to get back to the original substance, and find sound criteria.
Oh, and, that’s also fun… that I’m “failing to understand the most basic facts of reality” and am “the biggest fool” you’ve “seen on here all week”, given ^. Like I say, fun psychological analysis to be had in this… Like, maybe, could that be… projecting?
I’ve heard this random theory that everyone is naturally pansexual (or asexual of course, though this not specified in the original theory (the original theory was a short Discord message, I’m expanding on it massively)), and that attraction only to particular sexes/genders/presentations etc. is a social construct, and that preference for particular traits or presentations is what being “straight” or “gay” or “bi” or “pan” acually is. I think this is reasonable and likely be true, but of course it could also not be.
The “but reproduction instinct” counterpoint doesn’t actually hold up against actual nature. There are many instances of same sex attraction in animals. I wonder, are the animals “gay” (same sex attraction only), are they “bi” (attraction to males and attraction to females), or are they “pan” (attraction does not take sex into account or has some but little regard for it). Probably some of each, I wonder what the proportions are. Telling between bi and pan may be difficult in this case.
Growing up on a farm, I for sure saw a lot of eunuch on eunuch action. Circumstance, survival (including psychological), physiology & biology (especially hormones (like if gonads have been removed)), opportunity, and more, all play into sexual expression.
It certainly helps put aside cultural indoctrinations to reductive certain absolutes, growing up seeing that.
Which in turn helps avert getting tied up in neurotic knots about it all.
So I continue to fall back on “everybody’s bi”, rather than pondering about straight or gay, seeing the apparent of either just as temporal-circumstantial leanings within “everybody’s bi”. … I could probably expand that asserted hypothesis as “everybody’s pan”, but I’m not sure how helpful or harmful that could be. Found peace enough in “everybody’s bi” for myself.
There are many examples of animals showing exclusive preference for one sex. How do they fit into this model?
What about people who realized they were gay without ever having heard of such a thing?
According to this theory those are some of the stronger cases of preference. This theory does not dismiss preference, it just dismisses it being inherently determined (that you’re not “assigned gay at birth” just like how you’re not “assigned liking apples over pears at birth”).
Unfortunately the saying refers to soft men like Trump et. al., not femboys.
God I wish we had a femboy president and cabinet… I’m not even attracted to them. I just know they’d be infinitely better than the fucking fascist cheeto et. al…
no its about femboys. read history
can confirm I lived in the Roman empire 👍
You’d be surprised by the amount of nazi femboys there are…
Eh… I’m aware how insufferably ‘bottom’ many of them are. To want to be a nazi whilst being a type of person they would likely dislike is … pretty strong bottom energy.
It’s not only about bottoms tho
There a lot of people in LGBT+ community that supports islam\sharia law. Amount of people that are simultaneously in those two circles is surprisingly high. Same with women and sharia law actually. You would think they understand that it basically a suicide - but here we are. Sadly, don’t have exact numbers, maybe that just vocal minority, who knows.
I mean, even if we talking about politics - there a lot of people who supported Trump for example. Same people then complained, that their group (LGBT+, farmers, etc) was negatively affected by his politics. Leopards do what leopards do.
Also, in my birth country russia (I hope it cease to exist), all that fascist “z” movement rise so high, that many communities like furry, anime, mlp, etc. became toxic waste. Sad thing really, you see how people support same regime, that prosecute them.
Yea, it was partly a joke. I will never understand how people, especially minorities, can look themselves in the mirror after voting against their own interest. Not even in a greedy way, but in a, “what the fuck did you think would happen?” sort of way.
This is still not the criteria to decide who decides…
… Nor correct reasoning. Femboys can be fascist too. These are not mutually exclusive sets. So no, you are in error asserting you know they’d be better, if you’re saying they’d not be fascist. Power corrupts, and corrupted feboys may be a devil we don’t know. I’d rather not have a devil making machine. No matter which flavour of devils. I do not want a devil making machine. Putting women in power, did not mend it. Putting “black faces in high places”, did not mend it. But putting femboys in the power structure shaped for fascism, is going to mend it? May be yet missing the lesson to learn here. ~ Sorry Martin Luther King. I’m tryin.
I’m absolutely positive there are fewer femboy fascists than Republican fascists.
My comment is not about the most ideal government, nor about power structures, but a direct comparison of two specific things.
So your “know” is just a gamble.
A gamble with better odds than the 100% chance we currently have… How fucking dense can you be?
It shouldn’t be fucking difficult to understand that a gamble is better than a guarantee.
Your aggressive ad-hominem, and moved goal posts, is uncompelling. Sorry I’ve failed to help elucidate the epistemics here for you, past your apparent identity attachment with this that’s causing such a social-dominance limbic-reaction occluding critical thinking, but given that reaction, I’m losing confidence in my abilities to cut through the emotion to get this correspondence back to the simple logic, and shan’t even try. Hoping you find the way to feel better.
lol good job failing to understand the most basic facts of reality, let alone anything about biology, but nice attempt to sound smart. You’re the biggest fool I’ve seen on here all week.
Fun testing my fallacy detector on your responses. We’ve gone from the earlier hasty-generalization (& over-generalising, & stereotype-based generalization), false-dilemma (& black and white thinking), ad-hominem, appeal to emotion, overconfidence, moving goal posts, hyperbole, weasel words, strawman, false equivalence, begging the question, non-sequitur, cherry-picking, and whatever else I missed, ~~ to now also add another ad-hominem, name-calling, appeal to ridicule, false authority, more hyperbole, red-herring, argument from ignorance, and whatever else I didn’t pick up on or neglected to note.
Always quite the spectacle, such rhetorical sauce, so reduced, so concentrated, to pack in so many punches in so few words. Makes it a bit of an exercise in Brandolini’s Law too. Much psychological analysis fun to be had in this too.
Still, beyond these increasing derailments, it would be good to get back to the original substance, and find sound criteria.
Oh, and, that’s also fun… that I’m “failing to understand the most basic facts of reality” and am “the biggest fool” you’ve “seen on here all week”, given ^. Like I say, fun psychological analysis to be had in this… Like, maybe, could that be… projecting?
Bro made a casual joke and you took it too seriously. YTA.
Those two aren’t men, they’re an enby and a trans woman.
Yet they still make me hard. Curious
Well that means you’re bi
t’aint nothin wrong with it though
everybody’s bi.
I’ve heard this random theory that everyone is naturally pansexual (or asexual of course, though this not specified in the original theory (the original theory was a short Discord message, I’m expanding on it massively)), and that attraction only to particular sexes/genders/presentations etc. is a social construct, and that preference for particular traits or presentations is what being “straight” or “gay” or “bi” or “pan” acually is. I think this is reasonable and likely be true, but of course it could also not be.
The “but reproduction instinct” counterpoint doesn’t actually hold up against actual nature. There are many instances of same sex attraction in animals. I wonder, are the animals “gay” (same sex attraction only), are they “bi” (attraction to males and attraction to females), or are they “pan” (attraction does not take sex into account or has some but little regard for it). Probably some of each, I wonder what the proportions are. Telling between bi and pan may be difficult in this case.
This definitely needs research.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/resources/explainers/are-there-queer-animals/ https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/can-animals-be-gay
Growing up on a farm, I for sure saw a lot of eunuch on eunuch action. Circumstance, survival (including psychological), physiology & biology (especially hormones (like if gonads have been removed)), opportunity, and more, all play into sexual expression.
It certainly helps put aside cultural indoctrinations to reductive certain absolutes, growing up seeing that.
Which in turn helps avert getting tied up in neurotic knots about it all.
So I continue to fall back on “everybody’s bi”, rather than pondering about straight or gay, seeing the apparent of either just as temporal-circumstantial leanings within “everybody’s bi”. … I could probably expand that asserted hypothesis as “everybody’s pan”, but I’m not sure how helpful or harmful that could be. Found peace enough in “everybody’s bi” for myself.
Are ace people bi?
everybody’s bi.
Why does asexuality not count as a learned preference in this theory?
There are many examples of animals showing exclusive preference for one sex. How do they fit into this model?
What about people who realized they were gay without ever having heard of such a thing?
According to this theory those are some of the stronger cases of preference. This theory does not dismiss preference, it just dismisses it being inherently determined (that you’re not “assigned gay at birth” just like how you’re not “assigned liking apples over pears at birth”).